U.S. Supreme Court rules Ball State not liable for hostile work environment
(Anyone else notice the irony of the writer being named Groppe?)
excerpt
The case turned on how strictly to define a supervisor because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act holds an employer to a higher standard of liability for severe or pervasive workplace harassment by a supervisor of the victim.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that an employee is a supervisor only if he or she can take “tangible employment actions” against a co-worker.
“The definition adopted today accounts for the fact that many modern organizations have abandoned a hierarchical management structure in favor of giving employees overlapping authority with respect to work assignments,” Alito write.
In the dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the majority’s opinion “ignores the conditions under which members of the work force labor.” Ginsburg said she would have followed the definition used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which Alito said is too vague.
But while Ginsburg objected to the decision, she did not think the Maetta Vance, the employee who brought the suit, had a strong case.
“Regrettably, the court has seized upon Vance’s thin case to narrow the definition of supervisor,” Ginsburg wrote.
Vance, who is black, accused a co-worker of racial harassment and retaliation in 2005.
A federal district judge dismissed the case before trial, saying Ball State had taken corrective action and did not have extra liability because the co-worker did not qualify as a supervisor.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals also sided with Ball State, but gave a narrower definition of a supervisor than other courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have used. The appeals court said the co-worker must have the formal authority to hire, fire, promote, transfer, or discipline another worker. The EEOC says a supervisor is someone with the ability to control a co-worker’s daily activities.
= new reply since forum marked as read
